Thanks. Will investigate that. However here's what I've got so far (involving localstorage):
http://substance.io/#michael/offline-applications-with-datajs
-- Michael
On Tuesday, August 2, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Randall Leeds wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 04:12, Michael Aufreiter <ma@zive.at (mailto:ma@zive.at)>
wrote:
> >
> > Nice. Having a look at it.
> >
> > It really depends on how much functionality you wanna delegate to the client. In
my opinion, in most cases you wan't to keep the amount of local data low. That's why I'll
probably use localstorage to memoize a complete snapshot of the current graph. Once you reload
the page all data is loaded into memory again (restored) and you can query it as usual (using
Data.Graph#find). So in my case I'd rather wanna use just LocalStorage without employing indexedDB
etc. as local views(map-reduce etc) wouldn't be an requirement here. But what I need to solve
is the replication thing.
>
> To solve replication and safely allow the application to be used
> across tabs you need indexedDB because it has transactions.
>
> Let me break that deduction down:
> Incremental replication requires a restart-able changes feed. A
> changes feed requires an index of updates order by time/sequence
> number. A sequence index that's kept in sync with the index of
> documents ordered by name requires changes to two indexes in an atomic
> transaction or race conditions are possible.
>
> If you're not worried about replicating incrementally or you're not
> worried about the possibility of race conditions (e.g., concurrent
> access by multiple tabs) you might be able to use LocalStorage,
> otherwise you'll need IndexedDB.
>
> Since PouchDB aims to be a robust and general-purpose implementation
> of CouchDB it uses IndexedDB.
>
> -Randall
>
> >
> > On Thursday, July 28, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Max Ogden wrote:
> >
> > > beginnings of an html5 couch: https://github.com/mikeal/pouchdb
> > >
> > > it would be great to get @mikeal and @tilgovi to chime in on this
> > > thread as they were writing the replicator for that
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Michael Aufreiter <ma@zive.at (mailto:ma@zive.at)>
wrote:
> > > > I'm currently working on a complete data-persistence solution for offline
apps, involving CouchDB and Data.js. I already introduced Data.js here at this mailing list
the other day, but here's a link again:
> > > >
> > > > http://substance.io/#michael/data-js
> > > >
> > > > I've setup a cleanroom example (tasks) that I want to test the new sync-functionality
against.
> > > >
> > > > http://tasks.substance.io (don't miss the sync button in the upper right
corner)
> > > > https://github.com/michael/data/blob/7729d41677e48bd5132119997dc0cff53522bb55/examples/tasks/public/javascripts/views/app.js
> > > >
> > > > It's currently just one way. It just writes changes to the server but
does not pull in node-updates. Now this should change.
> > > >
> > > > The algorithm for a bi-directional sync I have in mind looks like so:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Pull: For all nodes I have in my local graph, check if there are updates
(other users might have updated them), and if yes, pull them in
> > > > If conflicts occur the client/user decides how to resolve it (choose a
revision or merge it)
> > > >
> > > > 2. Push: Write all local dirty nodes to the server
> > > >
> > > > If that succeeded, the sync is complete. Usually if there's not much time
between the pull and the push it's unlikely to run into conflicts when doing the push.
> > > >
> > > > However I'm asking myself how CouchDB replication is implemented -- maybe
I can re-use some of the concepts.
> > > >
> > > > In order to perform the Pull, I thought about sending a list of ID's+revisions
to the server. The server (resp. Couch) should then check if there are updates for any of
them. If yes, those nodes should be fetched and delivered to the client. Given that number
of ID/revision pairs, what would be the best way to check for updates? Or do you have any
other ideas on how to do the pull?
> > > >
> > > > An implication of this scenario is that application developers should
do their best to keep the local graph rather small (the bigger it gets the more overhead you
have when doing the push, also more memory is used). However this should suit a lot of scenarios
(like in my case making possible offline editing of Substance.io (http://Substance.io) documents)
> > > >
> > > > Would be great if some of you could help me out a bit here. I think such
a framework (Data.js+Couch) would be a great benefit for application developers who wan't
to build offline apps. What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > -- Michael